- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:07:44 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, Thanks for incorporating so many of my suggestions. A follow-on below. Regards, Tim On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17/01/2013 03:53, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> Paul, Graham, >> >> Thanks for such a great document! >> >> My review is below. >> >> Regards, >> Tim > > Tim, > > Thanks for your comments. Responses are inline. Some of my responses have extended beyond the immediate subject of your comments. If you want to review specific changes, please see https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/ae85f08dcda4/paq/prov-aq.html > > ... > >> >> >> 20) >> >> >> The suggestion to use a blank node should be avoided in 4.1.1: > > It's not a suggestion, it's an enumeration of allowable options. As such I think it's correct. Sure, it's correct, but it doesn't encourage established best practices. If you want to remain correct, then only mention "resource" which is the group of bnodes and URIs (and, URNs…). So, just eliminate the parens: "blank node or URI" > > But I also think this will change with a proposal by Stian, so I haven't made any updates to this for now, other to add a reminder to review this later. > > >> >> "where service-URI is the URI of the provenance query service, and query_option_node is any distinct RDF subject node (i.e. a blank node or a URI)." >> >> I suggest to state the the RDF subject node is the URI of the service (which could be chosen by the server). >>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 14:08:09 UTC